[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.
What happened is that I attempted to simplify the test code to send to 
you, and simplified out the problem by using
kill() instead of causing a fault. :-)

It's just what you describe here:

>One difference in 2.4.x and 2.6.x is the signal blocking wrt blocked
>signals that are _forced_ (ie anything that is thread-synchronous, like a
>SIGSEGV/SIGTRAP/SIGBUS that happens as a result of a fault):
> - in 2.4.x they will just punch through the block
> - in 2.6.x they will refuse to punch through a blocked signal, but
> since they can't be delivered they will cause the process to be
> killed
The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix
systems upon which my confidence test passed.

I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else,
and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only
one using this "feature".



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.040 / U:1.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site